People v. Schaffer

2024 IL App (1st) 230327-U

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Decided: April 12, 2024
• Docket: 1-23-0327
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

2024 IL App (1st) 230327-U No. 1-23-0327 Order filed April 12, 2024 Sixth Division

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 21 CR 4136 ) JALEN SCHAFFER, ) Honorable ) Timothy J. Joyce, Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

JUSTICE HYMAN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶1 Held: Defendant’s convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery affirmed where the victim’s credible testimony was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a co-offender was armed with a firearm during the offenses.

¶2 Jalen Schaffer contends that the State failed to prove that a co-offender possessed a firearm

during the offenses. Schaffer claims that the victim’s testimony that he saw a firearm was

inconsistent and contradicted by a video recording that did not depict a firearm. Schaffer asks that No. 1-23-0327

his conviction for armed robbery be reduced to robbery and the case remanded for resentencing

on the lesser offense.

¶3 We affirm. The State proved that Schaffer knowingly took property from the victim by

force or threat of the imminent use of force while an unnamed co-offender was armed with a

firearm. The surveillance video did not contradict the use of a firearm, which was described by the

victim, though not visible in the video.

¶4 Background

¶5 At trial, Gregory Keller testified that he was riding home from work on a southbound CTA

Red Line train. A man approached and asked him if he needed marijuana. Keller declined, and the

man left the train. A few minutes later, another man, later identified as Schaffer and three other

men approached Keller. Schaffer sat across from Keller; one man stood on each side of Keller,

and one stood near the train’s door. Schaffer asked Keller if he had marijuana. Keller replied he

had a small amount, removed it, and showed it to Schaffer.

¶6 Schaffer took the marijuana, smelled it, and returned it. Schaffer told Keller to “run” his

pockets. Keller did not understand “run.” The man standing to Keller’s left struck Keller in the

forehead with an object, and the four men attacked him. Keller realized he was being robbed and

that “run” meant to remove everything from his pockets.

¶7 Keller testified that the co-offender struck him with a chrome “pistol like a .25 automatic

handgun.” Keller added, “it was small enough to fit in his hand, and when he struck me, I’d seen

the chrome part, and I’d seen the little black handle. I had a few guns in my lifetime and I knew it

didn’t look like a .9 or .380. I know it was a small gun that you could put in your hand and then

-2- No. 1-23-0327

when I got hit with it I just started gushing with blood and that’s when all of them rushed me.”

The prosecutor asked Keller if he could tell it was “a real gun.” Keller replied, “[y]es.”

¶8 The men took Keller’s belongings, including his cell phone. They dragged Keller down the

aisle, ripped his pants, and took his wallet and “work ID.” A box cutter Keller used at work fell

out of his jacket pocket. One of the co-offenders grabbed it and stated, “[h]e got a knife on him. I

should pop him.” Keller explained that “pop” meant “he should shoot me, pop a cap in me.” While

making this statement, the co-offender had raised the front of his shirt near his waistline, and Keller

saw “the little handle” of the same gun he “got hit with.”

¶9 Keller broke away from the men, went to the rear of the train, and pulled down an

emergency lever to stop the train. The train did not immediately stop. The four offenders ran

through multiple train cars through the emergency doors. As the train slowed and approached the

station at 47th Street, Keller pushed the intercom button and told the train operator that he had

been robbed and that the offenders were running off the train. Keller also got off at 47th Street and

told the CTA customer service agent what had just occurred. The CTA agent called the police and

an ambulance. Keller’s forehead was still bleeding. Keller showed the court a “gash” on his

forehead from the attack.

¶ 10 Keller testified that he had handled guns “[a]bout seven times.” When he saw the gun, there

was no indication that the gun was not real.

¶ 11 Keller confirmed that a surveillance video on the train accurately depicted the attack. The

State played multiple segments of the surveillance video. Keller also confirmed that he could not

identify any offender when the police showed him a photo array.

-3- No. 1-23-0327

¶ 12 On cross-examination, Keller confirmed that when the co-offender raised his shirt and

showed him the gun, Keller already knew that offender had a gun because he had used it to pistol-

whip him. Defense counsel asked Keller if he had seen a gun on the video. Keller replied, “I got

hit with something. I thought it was a gun so I don’t know what they did but –.” Counsel interrupted

Keller, but the court told Keller to finish his answer. Keller testified, “I got hit with something

silver in my head and I don’t know if you-all were able to see it or not but that’s what I got hit

with. That’s what made me fall down and made them get on me like that. That’s what I remember.”

Keller acknowledged he did not see a gun on the video but saw it in person during the attack.

¶ 13 The trial court viewed the surveillance video, showing Keller facing the aisle next to the

train door. Schaffer entered the train car through the emergency door from the adjoining car,

followed by three young men. Schaffer sat in the seat directly across and began speaking. The

three other men surrounded Keller and simultaneously attacked him, punching him and then

dragging him down the aisle. Keller broke free and pulled the emergency lever that opens the

doors. A gun is not visible in the video.

¶ 14 Chicago police officer Conor Strauss testified that he spoke with Keller at the CTA station

after the robbery. Keller was distraught and had injuries on his face and a cut on his lip. The State

presented about one minute of Strauss’s body camera video, which depicted Keller’s injuries.

¶ 15 The State presented a stipulation that Chicago police officer Meeks would testify that he

responded to a call at a CTA Red Line platform and saw Schaffer, whom he would identify in

court, wearing a green jacket, white face mask, and black winter cap. The State presented 13

seconds of Meeks’s body camera video that showed Schaffer and a few other young people talking

to police on the train platform at the Roosevelt station.

-4- No. 1-23-0327

¶ 16 Chicago police detective Paul Urban testified that while investigating the armed robbery

of Keller, he recovered the surveillance video from the CTA train and platform. The next day,

Urban was informed that there was an assault in progress on the CTA Red Line near the Roosevelt

station and that the offenders appeared to be the same men who robbed Keller. Urban watched a

live feed of the Roosevelt platform and later watched a body camera video from the officers who

stopped the men. Schaffer was one of the men stopped. Schaffer was wearing the same clothing as

the day before. Urban identified Schaffer in court.

¶ 17 Additionally, Urban identified three photographs of sequential still images he took from

the video of Keller being robbed. Urban identified Schaffer in the photos. Urban testified that the

first photograph showed Schaffer standing with an open hand near Keller. The second photo

showed Schaffer bent down, reaching toward Keller. The third photo showed Schaffer standing up

holding a cell phone. Urban also identified a still image of Schaffer from the day after that he took

from an officer’s body camera video.

¶ 18 Schaffer was arrested on February 25, 2021. Schaffer identified himself in the four photos

described during the videotaped statement to Urban. The State played a segment of Schaffer’s

videotaped statement in which Schaffer identified himself in the photos, stated that he never struck

Keller, and claimed the cell phone was his own.

¶ 19 Schaffer testified that on the day of the incident with Keller, he was riding the CTA Red

Line train alone, going home, when he ran into some people he knew. Schaffer asked Keller if he

could smell the marijuana Keller had just bought from one of the men in Schaffer’s group. Schaffer

never struck Keller or took items from him. Schaffer claimed he was holding his own cell phone

in the photo Urban discussed. Schaffer testified that he pushed the other men away from Keller

-5- No. 1-23-0327

and stopped the attack. Neither Schaffer nor any of the men in his group had a gun, and Schaffer

never saw anyone in his group flash a gun.

¶ 20 On cross-examination, Schaffer acknowledged that he sat directly across from Keller on

the train, and the other three men stood around Keller. Schaffer smelled Keller’s marijuana to see

how potent it was. When the three men jumped on top of Keller and were beating and kicking him,

Schaffer stood up and hovered over Keller. Schaffer maintained that he pushed the men away from

Keller and “was being a Good Samaritan” when he stopped the attack. While the State replayed

the surveillance video, Schaffer acknowledged that his hands were initially empty. After he leaned

in close to Keller, an object appeared in Schaffer’s left hand that “could” have been a cell phone,

and Schaffer placed it in his own pocket. Schaffer confirmed that the video did not show him

pushing anyone away from Keller or stopping the attack.

¶ 21 In closing, defense counsel argued that the State failed to prove that anyone possessed a

gun during the offense, and no gun was seen on the surveillance video.

¶ 22 The trial court found all the State’s witnesses’ testimony credible, and Schaffer’s testimony

was “utterly unworthy of belief.” The court stated that the issue was whether the State had proven

a firearm had been used in committing the offenses. The court further stated,

“Mr. Keller has testified that he has familiarity with guns; he’s seen and handled

guns on about five or six occasions and he was struck with what he believes was a small

firearm, perhaps, a .22 or a .25, that fit in the palm of one of these persons and when he

was struck it caused a gash on his forehead, a busted lip which caused bleeding.”

-6- No. 1-23-0327

The court acknowledged that a gun was not visible on the video and commented, “but there’s a lot

of things you don’t see on this video.” The court pointed out that none of the offenders’ hands,

other than Schaffer’s, could be seen on the video.

¶ 23 The trial court concluded that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenses

had been committed with a firearm and found Schaffer guilty of armed robbery with a firearm (720

ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2020)), aggravated battery of a transit passenger (720 ILCS 5/12-

3.05(d)(7) (West 2020)), and aggravated unlawful restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3.1 (West 2020)). The

court merged the aggravated unlawful restraint offense into the armed robbery offense. It

sentenced Schaffer to concurrent prison terms of 25 years for the armed robbery and 5 years for

the aggravated battery.

¶ 24 Analysis

¶ 25 Schaffer solely contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a co-

offender possessed a firearm during the offenses. Schaffer claims that Keller’s testimony that he

saw a firearm was inconsistent and contradicted by the surveillance video, which did not depict a

firearm. Schaffer argues that Keller never explained how he knew the gun was real. Schaffer

further contends Keller “backpedaled” from his claim that he was struck with a gun when he

testified, “I got hit with something. I thought it was a gun.” Schaffer asserts that Keller did not

mention the gun to the police until several minutes into their discussion at the CTA station.

¶ 26 When a defendant claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, we

determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, a rational trier of

fact could have found the elements of the offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v.

McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶ 22 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). This

-7- No. 1-23-0327

standard applies whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, and we will not substitute our

judgment for that of the fact finder on issues involving credibility and the weight of the evidence.

People v. Jackson, 232 Ill. 2d 246, 280-81 (2009). On review, we draw all reasonable inferences

from the evidence in the State’s favor. People v. Jones, 2023 IL 127810, ¶ 28.

¶ 27 In a bench trial, the trial court is responsible for determining the credibility of the witnesses,

weighing the evidence, resolving conflicts in the evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences.

People v. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d 213, 228 (2009). In weighing the evidence, the court need

not disregard the inferences naturally flowing from the evidence or search for a possible

explanation consistent with innocence and raise it to the level of reasonable doubt. Jackson, 232

Ill. 2d at 281. We will not reverse based on insufficient evidence unless the evidence is so

improbable or unsatisfactory that there is reasonable doubt of guilt. Jones, 2023 IL 127810, ¶ 28.

Nor will we reverse because a defendant claims a witness was not credible or the evidence was

contradictory. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 228.

¶ 28 To prove Schaffer guilty of armed robbery, the State had to establish that he knowingly

took property from Keller by using force or threatening the imminent use of force while he carried

on or about his person or was otherwise armed with a firearm. 720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2) (West 2020).

Here, an unnamed co-offender was armed with a firearm. Schaffer has not challenged, either at

trial or on appeal, his accountability for his co-offender’s possession of a firearm. Schaffer also

does not challenge the elements of the offense. The only issue is: Did the State prove the co-

offender was armed with a firearm?

¶ 29 Section 2-7.5 of the Illinois Criminal Code of 2012 states that a “firearm” is defined as

provided in section 1.1 of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID Act). See 720 ILCS

-8- No. 1-23-0327

5/2-7.5 (West 2020); 430 ILCS 65/1.1 (West 2020). A “firearm” refers to “any device, by whatever

name known, which is designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosion,

expansion of gas or escape of gas.” 430 ILCS 65/1.1 (West 2020). The definition excludes items,

including B-B guns, pneumatic guns, spring guns, paint ball guns, signaling devices, and antique

firearms. Id.

¶ 30 Our supreme court has repeatedly held that the testimony of a single eyewitness suffices

for a rational trier of fact to infer that a defendant possessed a real firearm within the meaning of

the FOID Act. See People v. Washington, 2012 IL 107993, ¶ 36 (holding jury could reasonably

infer defendant possessed real gun based on witness’s unequivocal testimony and circumstances

under which he was able to view gun); People v. Wright, 2017 IL 119561, ¶¶ 76-77 (applying

rationale from Washington to reach same disposition). In McLaurin, the court reiterated and

applied its rationale from Washington and Wright. McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶¶ 29-32.

¶ 31 Following Washington, Wright, and McLaurin, this court has expressly held that, for a

witness’s testimony to be sufficient, the witness doesn’t need to describe the firearm with

specificity or have a familiarity or experience with firearms. People v. Moore, 2023 IL App (1st)

211421, ¶ 84; People v. Joseph, 2021 IL App (1st) 170741, ¶ 63. Nor need a witness see the entire

firearm, “much less see it for more than a brief moment or from a favorable vantage point.” Joseph,

2021 IL App (1st) 170741, ¶ 63. Moreover, this court has consistently found “[a] defendant’s threat

to shoot a victim is circumstantial evidence that he was armed with a firearm.” See id. at ¶ 71.

¶ 32 Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the record reveals that from Keller’s

testimony alone, the trial court could infer that one of Schaffer’s co-offenders was armed with a

real firearm. Keller unequivocally testified that a co-offender struck him in the forehead with a

-9- No. 1-23-0327

chrome “pistol like a .25 automatic handgun.” Keller described specific details of the gun,

explaining that “it was small enough to fit in his hand,” had a ”chrome part,” and a “little black

handle.” Keller discussed his familiarity and personal experience with firearms, stating he “had a

few guns in my lifetime,” handled guns “[a]bout seven times,” and “knew it didn’t look like a .9

or .380.” Keller affirmed that he could tell the firearm was a “real gun.” Thus, the record shows

that Keller’s testimony went beyond what the court needed to find it sufficient. Moore, 2023 IL

App (1st) 211421, ¶ 84; Joseph, 2021 IL App (1st) 170741, ¶ 63.

¶ 33 The record further shows that Keller saw the firearm a second time when the co-offender

lifted his shirt and displayed the gun in his waistband. Keller testified that he again saw “the little

handle” of the same gun “he got hit with.” Keller’s testimony revealed that the co-offender stated,

“[h]e got a knife on him. I should pop him,” which Keller understood meant “he should shoot me.”

The co-offender’s threat was circumstantial evidence from which the trial court could infer that

the co-offender was armed with a real firearm. Joseph, 2021 IL App (1st) 170741, ¶ 71.

¶ 34 The trial court determined the credibility of Keller’s testimony and drew reasonable

inferences from the evidence. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 228. The court found Keller’s

testimony credible, expressly noting Keller’s “familiarity with guns” and description of the “small

firearm.” Under Washington, Wright, and McLaurin, we find no reason to disturb the finding that

Keller’s testimony sufficiently established that the co-offender was armed with a real firearm, as

defined in the FOID Act. McLaurin, 2020 IL 124563, ¶¶ 29-32.

¶ 35 In reaching this conclusion, we find no merit in Schaffer’s argument the surveillance video

contradicted Keller’s testimony about the firearm. Both Keller and the trial court acknowledged

that the firearm was not visible in the video. Contrary to Schaffer’s argument, Keller did not

- 10 - No. 1-23-0327

“backpedal” that a co-offender had a gun. Instead, Keller remained adamant that he was struck

with a firearm, “I don’t know if you-all were able to see it or not but that’s what I got hit with.”

Keller testified that the gun was “small enough to fit in his hand.”

¶ 36 The trial court also commented, “there’s a lot of things you don’t see on this video,” and

specifically pointed out that none of the offender’s hands, other than Schaffer’s, could be seen on

the video. The record shows that the trial court found no merit in defense counsel’s argument that

the State failed to prove that anyone possessed a gun because no gun was depicted in the video.

We concur that the video evidence was not contradictory. Siguenza-Brito, 235 Ill. 2d at 228.

¶ 37 Finally, Schaffer’s claim that Keller did not mention the firearm to the police until some

12 minutes into his interaction with them is based on a portion of the video evidence that was not

admitted at trial and, therefore, is not properly before us. People v. Velez, 388 Ill. App. 3d 493,

502 (2009). The State admitted less than one minute of the video from Strauss’s body camera

depicting the officer’s interaction with Keller at the CTA station. The prosecutor started the video

“at 1 minute and 55 seconds” and stopped the video “at 2 minutes and 44 seconds.” The segment

Schaffer relies on, from “12:35-13:53,” was not admitted at trial. So, we do not consider this

contention. Id.

¶ 38 Affirmed.

- 11 -